CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Roy Rollins filed an action under T.C.A. sec. 50-1025 to increase a previous compensation award. Initially, he was granted 75% loss of a leg, but the trial judge later increased it to 75% permanent-partial disability to his body as a whole, believing he made a mistake in the first ruling. The Supreme Court reviewed whether the judge could correct a mistake and if there was material evidence for increased disability. The court found that Rollins' testimony was substantially similar to his previous statements, indicating no actual increase in disability. Consequently, the judgment below was reversed, and the petition dismissed, as the statute does not permit correcting factual conclusions without proof of increased disability.

Workers' CompensationDisability IncreaseJudicial ErrorMaterial EvidencePrior AwardAppealTennessee LawPermanent Partial DisabilityMedical ConditionRes Judicata
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

Cas Underwood, an employee of BASF Corporation, sustained work-connected injuries from an explosion. He received a lump-sum disability award, which was later paid by Zurich Insurance Company. Subsequently, Underwood was diagnosed with Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and petitioned to reopen the final judgment, seeking additional disability benefits. The trial court dismissed his petition to reopen, citing a Tennessee statute on the finality of lump-sum payments, but granted his motion for future medical expenses related to PTSD. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that an increase in disability after a lump-sum award does not constitute grounds for relief under Tenn.R.Civ.P. 60.02(5) and that timely notice was given for medical expenses.

Workers' CompensationPost-traumatic Stress DisorderLump-sum SettlementFinality of JudgmentRule 60.02Increased DisabilityMedical ExpensesNotice RequirementAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
17
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 02301 [182 AD3d 821]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2020

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

This case involves a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated by Community, Work, and Independence, Inc. (petitioner) to challenge a determination affirming the objection to its proposed discharge of M.D., an individual with developmental disabilities, from day habilitation services. M.D.'s parents objected to the discharge, and an administrative hearing sustained their objection, a decision later affirmed by the Commissioner of the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities. The Appellate Division, Third Department, confirmed the Commissioner's determination, finding that the burden of proof was appropriately placed on the service provider. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the finding that discharging M.D. was not reasonable, considering his needs, the lack of suitable alternative programs, and despite the petitioner's financial concerns. The court suggested that financial issues for service providers should be addressed by seeking increased funding rather than by discharging individuals.

Developmental DisabilityHCBS WaiverDischarge ServicesAdministrative HearingBurden of ProofSubstantial EvidenceFinancial ConcernsService ProviderMedicaid FundingAutism Spectrum
References
7
Case No. 2017-08-0024
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2020

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

Alisha Thomas filed a Petition for Benefit Determination (PBD) seeking permanent total disability benefits or additional permanent partial benefits, which Federal Express Corp. disputed. The Court ruled that Ms. Thomas is entitled to increased permanent partial disability benefits under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-207(3)(B) because she had not returned to work by the expiration of her initial compensation period, and her treating physician, Dr. Melvin Goldin, attributed her condition to the work injury at that time. However, the Court denied claims for additional benefits under section 50-6-242 and permanent total disability, as Dr. Goldin's later testimony revealed Ms. Thomas's condition had evolved beyond the initial somatic symptom disorder, and he could not definitively connect her advanced symptoms to the work injury at the time of the award. The awarded increased benefits totaled $3,379.01.

Permanent Partial DisabilitySomatic Symptom DisorderImpairment RatingRes JudicataMental Injury CompensabilityIncreased BenefitsSocial Security DisabilityTreating Physician TestimonyCausation StandardSettlement Agreement
References
5
Case No. 2020-05-0417
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 2021

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Donald Baldwin sustained a compensable left upper-extremity injury while working for Evers Construction Co., Inc. He sought increased permanent partial disability benefits, arguing his post-injury position at Evers did not provide overtime, leading to a lower average weekly wage compared to his pre-injury role. Evers countered that by statute, Mr. Baldwin was not entitled to increased benefits because his post-injury hourly rate of $21.00 exceeded his pre-injury rate of $17.35. The Court, relying on case law interpreting 'wages' as hourly rate of pay for hourly employees, denied Mr. Baldwin's claim for increased permanent partial disability benefits.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityWage InterpretationOvertime BenefitsHourly RatePost-injury EmploymentBenefit DenialTennessee LawStatutory InterpretationAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

David Donaldson appealed a trial court's summary judgment in favor of the Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services (DADS) on claims of race and disability discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment under the TCHRA and Title VII. Donaldson, an African-American employee diagnosed with multiple conditions including prostate cancer and PTSD, alleged DADS failed to accommodate his disabilities and discriminated against him through various adverse actions, culminating in his termination. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment for DADS on the race discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment claims, finding insufficient evidence of discriminatory intent or materially adverse actions in those areas. However, the court reversed and remanded the reasonable accommodation claim, concluding that Donaldson presented a fact issue regarding DADS's failure to provide continued assistance for his disabilities despite initial accommodations. This decision partially reverses the trial court's judgment, necessitating further proceedings on the reasonable accommodation aspect of the disability discrimination claim.

DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentDisability DiscriminationRace DiscriminationReasonable AccommodationSummary JudgmentTexas Commission on Human Rights ActTitle VIIEmployment Law
References
83
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 14, 1999

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

The claimant, who suffered a work-related injury in 1988, initially received permanent partial disability benefits at a mild rate in May 1996. Dissatisfied with this assessment, the claimant appealed, presenting medical evidence suggesting a more severe disability. This led the Workers’ Compensation Board to restore the case to the trial calendar for further development of the record concerning the degree of disability post-May 6, 1996. Although two physicians testified, with one indicating a moderate disability and another a total disability, the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) ultimately awarded benefits at a moderate partial disability rate. Upon the claimant's subsequent appeal, the Board ruled that the claimant was precluded from raising the issue of their degree of disability, citing regulatory provisions. The appellate court found that the Board had abused its discretion, as the issue was explicitly remanded by the Board previously, and the claimant was still aggrieved by the WCLJ's award despite an increase in benefits. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationDisability AssessmentAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionProcedural ErrorMedical EvidenceDegree of DisabilityRemittalNew York LawAdministrative Appeal
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 08, 1983

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

The claimant, a groom, injured her left knee in 1979 and was initially found temporarily totally disabled. The Workers' Compensation Board later reclassified her injury as a 15% permanent partial disability of the left leg, dating from the time of injury, and increased her benefits based on wage expectancy due to her being under 25. The employer appealed, arguing that wage expectancy benefits should not apply to the period of temporary total disability and that the record didn't substantiate a permanent partial disability ab initio. The court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that reclassification is a factual determination within the Board's sole province and was based on substantial evidence, and that the Board has continuing jurisdictional power to modify findings.

Permanent Partial DisabilityWage ExpectancyWorkers' Compensation LawInjury ReclassificationBoard JurisdictionSubstantial EvidenceLeft Knee InjuryGroomRiding AcademyTemporary Total Disability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

The case concerns a coal miner's claim for increased workers' compensation benefits due to worsening pneumoconiosis. The plaintiff's disability was initially adjudicated at 75% permanent partial disability, which the Chancellor later increased to 100% permanent total disability. The defendant insurer appealed, challenging both the increase in disability and the application of the current compensation rate. The Supreme Court upheld the finding of increased disability based on new evidence but reversed the Chancellor's decision on the compensation rate, ruling that the rate in effect at the time of the original injury (incapacity) should be applied, rather than the rate current at the second hearing. The case was remanded to the trial court for recalculation of benefits.

Workers' Compensation AppealCoal Worker's PneumoconiosisDisability ReassessmentBenefit Rate DisputeStatutory Interpretation of Compensation LawsTennessee Supreme CourtOccupational Lung DiseaseMedical Evidence ReviewRemand for RecalculationFederal vs. State Law
References
6
Case No. 08-23-00177-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2024

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

The Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services (DADS) terminated Claudia Gomez, alleging she physically assaulted a coworker; Gomez contended the termination was discriminatory based on age, gender, and disability. The trial court denied DADS's plea to the jurisdiction regarding Gomez's discrimination claims. On appeal, the court found Gomez failed to present evidence of a similarly situated comparator, thus not establishing a prima facie case for age, gender, or disability discrimination. Furthermore, Gomez did not demonstrate that DADS's stated reason for termination was a pretext for discrimination. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and dismissed Gomez's claims for lack of jurisdiction.

DiscriminationAge DiscriminationGender DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationEmployment LawTerminationPretextPrima Facie CaseSovereign ImmunityTexas Labor Code
References
30
Showing 1-10 of 9,573 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational